부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional decision as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant did not permit the construction of the project site of this case or permit the owner of the land to install urban gas pipelines of this case (hereinafter "the construction works of this case").
(2) As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal, the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal on the Plaintiff’s ground that the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal on the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is without merit.
(2) In relation to the construction project, it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to bear the residual value of pipes and the construction cost before the closure of pipes. (2) The Plaintiff intended to directly perform the construction project of this case. However, the Defendant forced the instant construction agreement to the effect that, if the Plaintiff, who is a private person, the Plaintiff, would have caused an explosion of pipes and to cause an injury. As such, the instant construction agreement is revoked by coercion.
3) Although the costs that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant were included in the cost of removing gas pipes, the Defendant did not remove gas pipes and was obliged to spend the costs for the Plaintiff to remove them again. As such, the Defendant’s claim for the costs related to the closed electric power plant construction in a state where the Plaintiff did not remove gas pipes is unjust to impose double burdens on the Plaintiff. Moreover, since the cost of installing urban gas paid by the Plaintiff includes the cost of removal construction, it constitutes double claims for the Defendant’s separate claim. 4) Since the Defendant did not specifically state the construction cost incurred from the closed electric power plant construction in the instant case and did not send it to the Plaintiff, the calculation of the cost related to the closed electric power plant construction
B. Determination 1 Concerning construction without permission.